This blog complemented the news and articles on wheelchaircurling.com. It was my contribution to the attempt to make curling the winter recreation of choice for Canadian wheelchair users.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Armstrong remains on Team Canada after disciplinary review

Here is the CCA's CEO Greg Stremlaw's statement concerning the review of Team Canada skip Jim Armstrong's actions for which he is expected to be sentenced in Seattle Federal Court on January 28th.

"As I think you are aware, a formal, comprehensive review of the situation was undertaken by a designated review committee including interviews with appropriate parties, consultation with stakeholders and a review and assessment of all pertinent and available documentation. As a result of this, the review committee did recommend a course of disciplinary action to the CCA which was approved and implemented. We feel that the disciplinary actions taken are fair and appropriate to the situation given the facts and information available to the review committee at this time. The disciplinary actions do include specific conditions, therefore, should any new facts or information become available which are relevant to this situation either before, during or after the January 28th court date, this matter can be revisited and further action taken if and as required.

"At this time, the athlete is still a part of the National Team program and will continue to train and compete as such."

36 comments:

Anonymous
said...

First of all, I am not a wheelchair curler but have several friends who are able bodied and wheelchair curlers. I think it is a very sad and disappointing day twhen the Canadian Curling Association continues to support Jim Armstrong, even though he has pleaded quilty to criminal charges and waiting his sentence. I think that we have many honest, law abiding wheelchair curlers across Canada who could be as good or better given his opportunities, training and monies.

Quoting Greg Stremlaw, "the athlete has definitely had disciplinary actions taken and specific conditions imposed."

Stremlaw vehemently rejected the suggestion that non-public actions that do not affect playing or funding might be seen as evidence the matter was not being taken seriously.

"I think that the CCA has taken this more than seriously with a considerable amount of time and effort spent on the comprehensive review, the consultation with multiple stakeholders and funding agents, the analysis of public and non-public documents, etc.

"We have as much information on this situation as likely anyone now," he said.

"There is no preferential treatment whatsoever, nor should there be. But a due process was owed and such an analysis, within the context of our policy set and those of our partners, was taken. It was and is being played by the book."

All I know about this matter is what is in the public record - an admission of guilt to a serious felony.

Quite why program funders would have input into whether Jim's behaviour transgressed the National Team Programs guidelines, athlete agreements, and codes of conduct. is unclear to me.

Doesn't the CCA and Natioal Team Programs have codes of conduct on committing and admitting to a serious felony?? Persons involved should not matter; he broke the law. And, Eric, only the old boys at CCA and his teammates who want to win like him more than you.

Some commenters object to Jim being treated as guilty before he has "had his say." I can understand people not wanting to believe that his statements in the plea agreement are true. But unless they are withdrawn, there is no "doubt" for which to give benefit.

I specifically asked Stremlaw if the CCA's position would change if the judge sentenced Jim as outlined in the plea agreement.

He replied: "The disciplinary actions that have been taken by the CCA are specific to what we know and related to the NTP guidelines.

"A conviction of the lesser charge which has already been plead does not really constitute new information per se."

He went on to say further action "will depend on whether the information (at sentencing) is contrary to what we have learned, which would appear to be unlikely – but is possible, or if the information impedes the athlete’s ability to fulfil his athlete obligations."

Presumably that means inability to travel.

The CCA does not view the offences as rising to the level of even limited suspension from the program.

Should funders have had a say in the decision? While they were involved in the review process, it's not clear that they did. But their interests, and the podium prospects for the team, would not be served by suspending Jim.

In my opinion the CCA does not help Jim or the program by treating this as a purely internal matter, when its effects are very public.

The CCA's obligstions to stakeholders, including Sport Canada are much larger than Jim. If Sport Canada has accepted the CCA's committee findings, either the public should accept the CCA doing thir job, or toss the whole works of them.

Our great skip Mr.Armstrong will walk.......oops he already walks.......but no problem......Mr Kevin Martin is complaning of an ingrown toe nail......he will be classified fast-track by cca in order to have him ready on time to the worlds....sorry wheelchair users.....maybe next time